Strategic Planning

Concepts and Considerations

for Criminal Justice Integrators

Implementing Criminal Justice Technologies

in the 21st Century Seminar

Consider these definitions

Stratagem – a cunning method of achieving something, a piece of trickery

Strategic – giving an advantage, a strategic position

Strategy – 1) the planning and directing of the whole operation of a campaign or war. 2) a plan or policy of this kind, or to achieve something, our economic strategy

Question

How is strategic planning different from project planning?

Project Planning Develops a sequence of steps

for project planning Creates the budget Develops implementation plan Keeps all stakeholders on

task Develops training timelines

including the costs of training

Strategic Planning High-level attempt to manage

complexity and change Long Term – involves phase

planning Designed to gain a strategic

advantage Used to create strategies to

help an organization exist in an uncertain and changing environment

Some differences are…

Question

If you choose not to develop and use strategic planning, what are the alternatives?

Alternatives to Strategic Planning include…

Continue with business as usual Maintain reactive response to events Use “intuitive” approach to management Manage from the “gut” Encourage manageable simplicity (eliminate all

computers!)

Benefits of Strategic Planning

Opens communication channels Serves as integration training for all who

participate Provides a sense of ownership to participants Encourages agency buy-in Even if the plan gets extensively modified over

time, the planning process itself is valuable

Question

What is different about strategic planning as applied to Integrated Justice?

Prosecution CourtsLaw

Enforcement

CHRI

RepositoryDOC

Integration Strategic Plan

Integration strategic planning provides a mechanism for coordinating the interrelated parts of an enterprise, thereby

avoiding fragmented, agency-centric business processes that compromise the efficient functioning of the enterprise as a

whole.

Sample Integration Plan Format

Mission, Vision, Values

Strategic Issues

Goals

Objectives

Performance Measures and Indicators

Vision

A clear, compelling picture of the desired future state

Vision for integration should be driven by stakeholders

Mission, Vision, Values

Goals

Objectives

Performance Measures/Indicators

Strategic Issues

Mission

A brief, clear statement of organizational intent and possibly the methods that it will use to fulfill its purpose

Brings clarity of purpose to participants and stakeholders and lets them know how what they do contributes to the greater good

Mission, Vision, Values

Goals

Objectives

Performance Measures/Indicators

Strategic Issues

Strategic Issues

Identification and resolution of strategic issues are at the heart of the plan

Strategic issues are fundamental policy questions or critical challenges that affect mission, values, services, mandates, users

Mission, Vision, Values

Goals

Objectives

Performance Measures/Indicators

Strategic Issues

Goals

Broad statements of intent to address and resolve strategic issues

Form the foundation for objectives, implementation strategies and action plans

Mission, Vision, Values

Goals

Objectives

Performance Measures/Indicators

Strategic Issues

Objectives

Clear tactical, measurable statements of intent Flow directly from each goal Less general in nature than goals Should be quantifiable and time bound

Mission, Vision, Values

Goals

Objectives

Performance Measures/Indicators

Strategic Issues

Outcomes and Performance Measures

Outcomes are the benefits or results gained by reaching goals, achieving objectives and resolving strategic issues

Performance Measures are specific, measurable, time-bound expressions of future accomplishment that relate to goals, objectives and strategic issues

Mission, Vision, Values

Goals

Objectives

Performance Measures /Indicators

Strategic Issues

Using the “Scenario” Approach to Justice Systems Strategic Planning

Bring stakeholders together to develop a criminal justice scenario

Reach consensus on the desired state of integration Define the current state of integration (baseline) Quantify gap between current state and desired state Use gap to initially define intermediate outcomes and

develop outputs

Strategic Planning

Models and Resources and Your Role in Leading the Plan

October 7, 2003

ScenarioStrategic

vision

Measure gaps

betweenvision and

currentstate

Close the gaps

Scenario for Information Sharing

Defines the information sharing need from a participant/stakeholder perspective

Describes an ideal information sharing environment

Includes response time and information concurrency requirements

Appendix 2

Scenario for Information Sharing in Illinois

This scenario identifies the future functions, range of information exchanges, and

interactions needed among primary entities throughout the justice enterprise for

information sharing in Illinois. The current technology for justice information systems

was validated against this scenario to identify the gaps which exist today (Appendix 3).

All members of the IIJIS Planning Committee, practitioners from a variety of justice

disciplines, collaborated on the creation of this scenario.

1. Subject Not Present: A police officer preparing to conduct a traffic stop or when

given an assignment prior to contact with any person, will submit a query to state

warrant system (LEADS) and Secretary of State (SOS) to return information on

persons and vehicles. The police officer will receive SOS and warrant data, digital

photo(s) and officer protection information (i.e., field notification program, etc.) within

less than 10 seconds within 24 hour currency. Additionally the officer should be notified

that information exists from a variety of other sources such as: Criminal History

Record Information (CHRI), Firearms Owners Identification (FOID), Automated

Victim Notification (AVN), Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), Immigration

and Naturalization Service (INS), Department of Children & Family

Services (DCFS), bond status/conditions, probation/parole status and conditions,

etc. within 1 minute within 24 hour currency. The information should be concise and

uniform.

2. First Subject Contact: Upon contact with a driver, or in cases other than traffic

where a police officer’s contact begins with a person, the primary objective is to identify

the individual, check the state warrant system (LEADS) and provide officer protection

information. The officer submits an inquiry containing biometric and demographic

(alpha-numeric) identifiers in order to verify the subject’s identity, and query the state

warrant system (LEADS) and SOS. The police officer will receive SOS and warrant

data, digital photo(s) and officer protection information (i.e., field notification program,

etc.) within less than 10 seconds and 24 hour currency. Additionally the officer should

receive a response that information exists from a variety of other sources such as:

CHRI, FOID, AVN, IDOC, DCFS, INS, bond status/conditions, probation/parole

status and conditions etc. within 1 minute and 24 hour currency. The information

should be concise and uniform.

3. A. Non-Custodial Situation: In cases where direct filing is permitted in compliance

with local rules on charge screening, the following applies. In a non-custodial situation

where an officer effects an arrest, issues a summons, or notice to appear, the officer

biometrically verifies the subject’s identity, the n digitally signs and electronically

pushes the arrest/complaint (including a synopsis of facts) and/or crash report to the

police information system, prosecutor information system, circuit clerk

information system, Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), probation,

parole and INS information systems and any agency subscribing to the

information.

Potential Downsides to “Scenario” Approach to Developing the Plan

Scenario develops “blue sky” view of integration that may never be realized

Expectations may be raised to unrealistic levels Participants may have difficulty assigning priorities Achievement of all scenario objectives may take years Link between process improvements as described by

scenario developers and end outcomes can be tenuous

The Gap Analysis – A Reality Check

Active process of examining the distance between the current state and the desired state

Answers whether skills and resources at hand are sufficient to close the gap

Determines if gap can be closed within the prescribed time period

No integration strategic plan can be complete without a thorough gap analysis

Scenario Validation Activities

Scenario validation focus groups Analysis of state-level justice data systems Analysis of state data communications

infrastructure Justice information exchange points model

(JIEM)

Sample Focus Group Findings

Subject history and status shouldn’t require separate inquiries

Inquiry from field should return only officer safety info

Criminal history info is not current Police need access to incident

report databases Digital photos needed Parole and probation conditions

needed for street stops

Live-scan is cost-prohibitive for small jurisdictions

Checking immigrant status requires phone query

Many warrants and most civil OP’s not entered into LEADS

Many prosecutors and probation departments lack access to criminal history files

Judiciary reluctant to use digital signatures and e-filing

Video bond court expansion needed

Infrastructure and Data Sharing Survey of Justice Agencies

Sent to a sampling of 450 police departments, sheriffs, state’s attorneys, court clerks, probation departments

Selected rural, collar and urban agencies (stratified regional sample)

Results indicate that while systems exist, electronic sharing is uncommon

Current information systems infrastructure in rural areas is behind that of urban counties

Strategic Planning

Models and Resources and Your Role in Leading the Plan

October 7, 2003

ScenarioStrategic

vision

Measure gaps

betweenvision and

currentstate

Close the gaps